into public life served the same purpose,
but crucially women’s role in relation to public power was differently
defined. The multiplicity of meanings of noblewomen’s social power is
better accommodated within a wider framework which can explain the
significance of, for example, women’s informal unstructured power to
influence events, not as the logical outcome of a system in which women
were subordinate to men, but as a result of the conflicting and complex
series of ways in which any individual was closed or excluded from
power. Thus powerful women as wives and
Anselm in 1105 at the height of the conflict between them. Eadmer
informs us that she sent to Anselm to tell him that she was ill and he
patronage and power
diverted to minister to her. She was appalled to hear that her brother
was about to be excommunicated and arranged a meeting between
Anselm and Henry at which they resolved their differences for good.21
Her illness was probably a pretext to divert Anselm to her court, where
she could influence him.22 Adela was a peacemaker in the dispute between
her brother and the exiled archbishop of Canterbury, and
conflicting, and possibly competing, multiple identities and
contexts of power. The following analysis therefore considers BedosRezak’s approach, but also takes account of the wider methodological
approaches of Bates, Stafford and Short. Chassel’s study of twelfthcentury French seals attempted to analyse the spread of seals within a
framework which took account of specific political and cultural contexts.
Thus he saw the spread of seals from the seigneurie to the castellanry in
France in, for example, Berry as a product of the internal rivalries within
Berry.18 Whilst this
with bare buttocks’; Orderic calls
her an ‘unlucky amazon’. Her defeat and loss of the castle were not
enough in Orderic’s narrative. The historicity of the tale is less important than the fact that Orderic uses voyeuristic detail to portray her in
a demeaning and humiliating way. Juliana was in a difficult political
situation where conflicting family ties made her position as wife and
daughter of protagonists difficult: her loyalty to her husband is, however, predominant. The allegation of her intention to commit patricide
is indicative of Orderic’s awareness of her
–40119 but she witnessed only one charter of her son, which confirmed a conjoint grant.120 When Roger augmented this gift and confirmed it in 1140, Gundreda witnessed the grant.121 Setting Gundreda’s
role into context as a witness is further complicated when we consider
Roger’s later augmentation and confirmation of this gift in the same
year.122 Gundreda did not witness further grants by Roger to Byland
in the period to 1154.123 However, she did maintain an interest in the
abbey. In 1147 the monks of Byland were in conflict with various local
landholders. They appealed to
The Rotuli de Dominabus et Pueris et Puellis de XII Comitatibus of 1185
Susan M. Johns
, Lordship of England, p. 24.
J. Brundage, ‘Widows and remarriage: moral conflicts and their resolution in classical canon law’, in Walker (ed.), Wife and Widow in Medieval England, pp. 17–31.
J. Bennett, ‘Widows in the medieval English countryside’, in Mirrer (ed.), Upon my
Husband’s Death, pp. 69–114.
The case of Hincmar of Laon in the Annals of St-Bertin
Hincmar was elected bishop of Laon – not without the assistance of the metropolitan of Rheims, who introduced him to the inner circle of the court of Charles the Bald. 4 Without any doubt Hincmar of Laon benefited from the high and influential political position of his uncle. However, the fall soon came and the relationship between the two Hincmars changed for the worse.
Other than Hincmar of Laon himself, the main actors in this conflict were King Charles the Bald and Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, who was uncle and metropolitan of the accused
ecclesiastical oversight and finally to oversight by an increasingly centralized communal government.
Twelfth- and thirteenth-century lay dominance
The power of grassroots demand on the part of the lay community of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries ensured their predominance in the leadership of early hospital administration. Conflict between independent bishops, the papacy, and imperial authority drove demand by lay reformers like Arnold of Brescia for control of charitable institutions. 2 The laity, searching for
Bernhard Zeller, Charles West, Francesca Tinti, Marco Stoffella, Nicolas Schroeder, Carine van Rhijn, Steffen Patzold, Thomas Kohl, Wendy Davies, and Miriam Czock
but between an aristocrat, who won, and groups of locals, something that also holds true for the other Iberian cases.
Nevertheless, there are cases in which it is clear that people of different settlements had combined for some legal purpose, most obviously to resist the accusations of a monastery, for example over the cultivation of ‘monastic’ land or over access to water, especially to power mills. The seven settlements of the Pardomino mountain entered in a joint conflict with the monastery of Pardomino in 944, three of them agreeing to pay regular rent in 955
, as well as issues such as intermarriage and the settlement patterns of aliens in some of the major towns. Finally, we shall address the evidence for organised, violent conflict between English people and the groups of foreigners who, from time to time, they identified as a focus of suspicion or hatred. Taking a balanced view of this broad range of evidence will allow us to gain a firmer impression of the true extent, and limits, of English toleration of foreigners.
The contacts between England’s immigrant and native populations were